The Type 9 ideas look interesting. I just don't know why they don't try and put a door set at the center articulation. I guess they are thinking why change what works. They used this door arrangement for the past 3 LRV types. I don't see why they cant double or triple the size of the center articulation and add a set of doors.

I love the exterior concept: streamlined and modern while still maintaining subtle nods to tradiditional North American streetcar design, it's much better than the genereic "eurotram" look that Mr. Sinclair is proposing. I do agree with him that copying the Type 8 interior is a bad idea. As he says, an all low-floor design would be much preferable to the Type 8-style hybrid that is seems to be the current proposal. To me, a low-floor version of the Type 7's sitting-orieted seat layout would be ideal, rather than a standee-oriented design as with the Type 8.

I just don't know why they don't try and put a door set at the center articulation.

Then where does the center truck go? You're right on top of the truck in the T8.

Why cant we get something modern....thats entirely low floor

Are there any currently any completely low floor cars rated for 55mph speed? That car in the picture is not entirely low floor. If it is similar to what's found on the Siemen's site, 70% of the car is low floor, the ends appear to use regular trucks.

Last edited by typesix on Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

I am not sure about this but I do not think a completely low-floor vehicle it possible in Boston. With the tight radius curves of the Boston system I think that could be an issue. As scene with the Type 8 cars their problems centered, no pun intended, around the center-section truck which is not a truck in the traditional sense. The wheels are fixed to the body frame and the method is not as flexible as a standard truck assembly. Now it may be possible if there are more sections, instead of the two rooms and a bath style, with a shorter wheel base.

I just don't know why they don't try and put a door set at the center articulation.

Then where does the center truck go? You're right on top of the truck in the T8.

Why cant we get something modern....thats entirely low floor

Are there any currently any completely low floor cars rated for 55mph speed? That car in the picture is not entirely low floor. If it is similar to what's found on the Siemen's site, 70% of the car is low floor, the ends appear to use regular trucks.

Well that was why I said they should double or triple the center articulation to add the door set.

And as for the design...remember guys these are just concept sketches, and the final product can look much different from what were are seeing in the drawings. But it is quite possible that the final design has already been selected, and they are just late on posting the concept sketches. I am not sure how the bidding process work on how they set the time line to show the public the design ideas and final set design.

If you make the second section longer then you need separate wheelsets at each articulation instead of just one wheelset in the middle.

(To the theater stage manager) Quit twiddling the knob and flickering the lights while the audience is entering and being seated. (To the subway motorman) Quit twiddling the knob and dinging the doors while passengers are getting off and others are waiting to board.

I just don't know why they don't try and put a door set at the center articulation.

Then where does the center truck go? You're right on top of the truck in the T8.

Why cant we get something modern....thats entirely low floor

Are there any currently any completely low floor cars rated for 55mph speed? That car in the picture is not entirely low floor. If it is similar to what's found on the Siemen's site, 70% of the car is low floor, the ends appear to use regular trucks.

I actually cant find any in use in america, although they do exist in Europe. That point is moot though, as the regulations differ.

However, the phoenix light rail car is rated for 55mph, and while it does have steps at the end, its only ONE step, unlike our cars which have 2. While it might not appear to make a difference, it does, as people are more likely to move up and away from the center.

Also, the phoenix cars have 4 doors on each side using a similar articulation as the type 8s.

At the end of the day, what they look like on the outside doesnt matter. They can look like stretched PCCs if they want.

The main issue is the interior. The type 8s have a very bad interior as it promotes bunching near the doors....which is the one place in the train without anything to hold on too.

The type 7s are much better, but not perfect either because of the 3 door configuration, meaning the rear of the train is empty while the front and middle can be packed,

One interesting note is that this will be a small order.... 14 cars if I remember correctly. The next big order, to replace the type 7s, wont come until 2019 (2014 for the type 9s). However, thats no excuse to make the same mistakes again!

To quote that famous philosopher, Charlie Brown ... AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHHH!

An off-the-shelf, proven design is available from more than one supplier, but ... Boston? We have unique needs. Dunno what they are exactly, but they're unique. Guaranteed to boost the cost of build and maintenance, and the cost of spare parts. When I was working for a living, we called it the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome. But, off-the-shelf? Nooooo! Not for us here in Boston. Never mind the money problem. We have narrow streets and snow, like some European cities .. oh, wait a sec ...

jamesinclair wrote:The type 7s are much better, but not perfect either because of the 3 door configuration, meaning the rear of the train is empty while the front and middle can be packed,

One problem with the Type 8s you didn't mention was that the entrances on the ends are a lot more cramped than on the Type 7s. What they ought to do is dust off the plans for the Type 6 and use that as the basis for the ends, at least. Like most of Boston's pre-PCC trolleys, the Type 6 was intended to have end doors on both sides of the operator.

"The destination of this train is [BEEP BEEP]" -announcement on an Ashmont train.

jamesinclair wrote:The type 7s are much better, but not perfect either because of the 3 door configuration, meaning the rear of the train is empty while the front and middle can be packed,

One problem with the Type 8s you didn't mention was that the entrances on the ends are a lot more cramped than on the Type 7s. What they ought to do is dust off the plans for the Type 6 and use that as the basis for the ends, at least. Like most of Boston's pre-PCC trolleys, the Type 6 was intended to have end doors on both sides of the operator.

Thats true, on a type 8 only one person can get on/off at the front door at a time, while the 7 made it easy for two.

And thats another thing... why does every car need to have two cabs? Its a huge waste of space AND money.

Just run a two car train back to back instead. Maybe even having fixed married pair consists would be appropriate.

How would the Portland MAX Light Rail trains do on the Green Line. They are about 20 feet longer than the Type 7s and 8s, but they have a much better layout than the Type 8s. Perhaps a scaled down version?